Connecticut
Post posts about what is happening in the State of Connecticut.
Public Meeting Minutes
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 07/30/2010 - 12:27Section 1-225 of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act requires that votes from public meetings be available within 48 hours and minutes be available within seven days. Minutes of public meetings are important for residents to be able to find out what is going on in their town. They are also important to journalists who do not have enough time to cover local events. In some cases, they become part of important legal discussions.
The Connecticut Siting Council is currently considering an application by AT&T to put a cell tower in Woodbridge. On July 28th, attorney Keith Ainsworth on behalf of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission submitted an application to intervene in the proceedings.
AT&T objected, relying heavily on the minutes of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission, including noting that the June 17th minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting is not yet available. The July 15th minutes are also not yet available.
On Wednesday evening, the Board of Selectmen met to consider a request from the Woodbridge Conservation Commission for the Town to participate in funding for intervener status re Siting Council Docket #388. If a vote were taken, the results of the vote would not be required to be available until this evening at the earliest and the minutes are not required until next Wednesday. Nonetheless, there have been subsequent filings in the docket concerning the meeting.
Part of AT&T’s objection asserts that the Conservation Commission’s Intervention Request is procedurally defective and lacks authority. They refer to the agenda item at the Board of Selectman meeting to consider the Conservation Commissions request saying
We are advised by a member of the public attending the meeting that the Board of Selectmen took no action on the Conservation Commission’s request.
Keith Ainsworth, on behalf of the Conservation Commission replied,
The Conservation Commission was authorized to take action to file the intervention before the Siting Council and expend town funds in doing so by the Board of Selectmen last evening. AT&T represented falsely that selectmen failed to act on the request
Attorney Ainsworth’s allegations of a misstatement of fact which was conveyed to us by a member of the public is not accompanied by any independently verifiable facts of his own (i.e. based on discussions with the Town’s Board of Selectmen). As such, the Council may want to call the First Selectman directly to ascertain what if any formal action the Board of Selectmen did or did not take last night.
The response continues noting
The request previously submitted by Attorney Ainsworth lacks a resolution from the Conservation Commission adopted by a duly noticed public meeting of its own authorizing such action to seek intervenor status in Docket 388.
Agendas and meeting minutes matter. They are a way to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard and this can become very important when the lawyers get involved.
(Cross-posted at The Woodbridge Citizen.)
Social Media and Schools
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 07/29/2010 - 10:35A few years ago, Avery Doninger posted a message on her personal Livejournal account from home one evening criticizing the administration of the high school she was attending. As a result, she was barred from serving as class secretary in her senior year of high school. This raised many important issues about freedom of speech in the age of the internet which are being explored in a case proceeding through the Federal Courts.
Last night, the Windsor Locks Board of Education met to discuss a personnel matter. The agenda included an executive session to discuss the Superintendent’s position/contract. All of this comes in the wake of comments that Superintendent David Telesca posted on Facebook. According to the Hartford Courant, Superintendent Telesca commented online that “my first day on site involved counseling an administrator to retire or face termination”.
The Courant article goes on to say,
A spokesman for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education said Tuesday that he could not recall any instances in the state when social media usage was a problem for a school district.
Apparently, the spokesman is not aware of the Doninger case.
There are many interesting aspects to this. Policy and law often lag technology, and few, if any school boards seem to have policies on the use of social media. On the other hand, an underlying question is whether or not online communications are substantially different than other forms of communications. Online communications are often more persistent, easier to search, and may reach a broader audience, but is this a difference of magnitude or something more substantial? One board of education member observed that boards do not have policies on ballpoint pen usage.
It may even be that the difference of magnitude is fading. As ‘trackers’ become more common in the political sphere, what people say when they are talking to a politician in a coffee shop may become as persistent, searchable and broad reaching as anything else. The line between the personal and the public continues to blur.
In would be wrong for the Windsor Locks Board of Education to terminate their superintendent because he made his remarks on Facebook. If, however, the content of the remarks are deemed to have violated Board policy, for example, saying too much about personnel cases, that would be a different issue. I do not know what different school board polices are about a superintendent talking about the hiring or firing process without mentioning individuals involved. It would seem as if there is benefit to these sorts of discussions, such as letting it be widely known that a school is searching for certain types of employees or discouraging certain types of behaviors.
This is not to say that schools should not be paying close attention to social media. If anything, they are currently failing by not focusing enough on it. Social media is the new place for kids to hang out. Teachers and administrators need to understand what is going on in the lives of their students. They should be providing skills to help students make the best possible use of tools in the twenty first century, which includes social media.
Indeed, some of the best teachers and administrators I know are the ones that make ample and wise use of social media. Students are encouraged to share their work with the public online, in ways that protect the students’ privacy. Administrators are using social media to communicate with teachers, parents, tax payers and other stakeholders about what is going on in the school districts.
Social media, like any other tool, can be used wisely or stupidly. It can be used for good or for ill. Some people will have backlashes against any new tool since the tool could be misused or used for ill. It is better to understand new tools and help people learn to use them in the best possible ways.
(Cross posted at deliberateCT.)
#swforce A Perpetual Virtual CityCamp?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 20:32Tuesday morning will see the second meeting of those interested in establishing a Social Web Task Force for the City of New Haven. I’ve written a little bit about this in #swct Social Media and Civic Involvement Redux and Embracing the Untaskforce, Social Media and Civic Involvement - #swct. Andre Yap wrote about this in The New Haven Project: 100 Common Visions in 100 Days and Brandon Jackson has written about this in New Haven 2.0. Now, we need to start fleshing out what this really means.
An Open, Honest and Respectful Debate
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 13:04Sunday morning, shortly before the family dance was about to start at the Falcon Ridge Folk Festival, Kim’s cell phone rang. It was Ned Lamont calling. Kim and I became good friends with Ned back in 2006 when we both worked on his U.S. Senate campaign against Joe Lieberman. We haven’t been backing him in his 2010 Gubernatorial campaign for a few different reasons. After living for many years in Stamford, we are also good friends with Dan Malloy, and I believe either of them would be great governors. Also, both between Kim’s work for a non-partisan non-profit, and my writing, and seeking to keep good lines of communications up with all candidates, we felt it was best to stay out of the race.
I have been critical of Ned here, and other places, and Ned responds well to my criticism. We have open, honest, and respectful discussions about important topics. While Kim and I were soaking up the sun, the rain, and general positive experiences of a caring community of folk music fans, it sounded like the wheels were falling off the progressive bandwagon in Connecticut.
I have written repeatedly about how I think both Dan and Ned would be great governors and have urged them to keep their campaigns positive and chastised them when they have not. While we were at Falcon Ridge, Dan apparently launched a new television ad criticizing Ned about Ned not wishing to participate in as many debates as Dan would like. I have not seen the ad, so I am basing my comments about what I’ve read elsewhere.
Personally, I like debates and wish that Ned would be in more of them, but in this case, Dan is being whiny. What is worse is that Dan is reportedly attacking Ned over the way Ned ran his company. Uncool. I remain undecided in the gubernatorial race, but the result of this ad is that I am less likely to vote for Dan than I had been before he ran this ad. I’ve been to Ned’s office. I’ve spoken with people that work there. Just as in politics, you can have differences of opinions on aspects of how a company is run without it meaning that the person is running the company poorly. That said, I do have big concerns about how Tom Foley has run his companies, but that is a very different story.
This has been followed by an article in the Hartford Courant by Jon Lender about a racial bias suit that was filed against Ned’s company back in 2002. Personally, I think Lender is one of the worst publicists for various campaigns pretending to be a journalist that I can think of. He does note that the case involved other issues besides alleged racial bias and that it was settled out of court with an agreement to keep the details confidential. In a press release, Dan has said that Ned “needs to answer the questions raised in today’s Hartford Courant story”. Bull. I’ve left jobs in the past with confidential agreements. I honor those agreements, no matter how much I would like to point out problems with previous employers. People who have worked for me have left companies with similar agreements and I would likewise never say anything about them either.
Dan’s comments in his press release make me even less likely to vote for him.
Now, we shall see how Ned responds. If he spends time harping about complaints filed against Dan while he was Mayor of Stamford, I’ll also becomes less likely to vote for Ned. Who knows, I might end up just voting in the other primary races. Dan or Ned would be fine, but if you want a real contrast, take a look at Kevin Lembo who would be a great comptroller and Mike Jarjura who I would never vote for, even if he hadn’t launched his recent negative ads that make the battles between Ned and Dan seem like child’s play.
I told Ned that he needs to stay on message. Advertisements and press releases about debates and employment agreements of seven years ago are not going to help Connecticut create new jobs. They aren’t going to improve the schools or transportation. If anything, they will perpetuate a broken political system that has elected people like Rowland in the past and created cynicism amongst voters. If Ned can respond with a message like that, and quickly move on to how he hopes to address the issues our state faces, he will come out way ahead, at least in my book.
Meanwhile, things were spinning out of control at the Connecticut progressive political blog, MyLeftNutmeg. I’ve only heard a little of the whining there, and even that much was way too much. I want an open, honest and respectful debate, and it certainly isn’t happening on MyLeftNutmeg. I pretty much gave up reading that site a month or two ago. I was hoping that they would be able to hold themselves together until after the primary, but at this point, I have serious doubts.
Whether or not Ned participates in additional televised debates, we will have the debates. They will take place in television advertisements. They will take place on blogs and Facebook. They will take place at picnics and pool parties. We can argue about what format is best, but the most important point is that they need to be open, honest and respectful. Likewise, the topics need to be meaningful. How will either candidate help Connecticut create jobs and have better schools and means of transportation?
Let’s have an open, honest, and respectful debate about the issues. They are too important to get buried in all this other garbage.
Embracing the Untaskforce, Social Media and Civic Involvement - #swct
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 03:45Local Governments, when faced with specific problems, often convene special task forces. These task forces have a typical format. They are focused on a specific problem. These problems are broken into their component issues. Stakeholders are identified and politically well connected people that have time, interest and some basic level of expertise are recruited and a timeline is established for the taskforce to meet specific outcomes.
Social media has the potential to turn all of this on its head. Political connections are supplemented with connections that have been strengthened through the use of online tools. Experts in specific areas can be found and connected to online. In New Haven, a growing group of people have worked together to promote New Haven as a location for Google to roll out its high speed Internet testbed and to organize Social Web Week, referred to by the hashtag #swct. Now, they seek to continue their discussions in City Hall about the possibility of a Social Web Task Force.
The initial reaction was similar to what any local government would do. The interested parties gathered in City Hall with the goal of identifying the key objectives, stakeholders and outcomes. Yet something interesting and different emerged. Instead of establishing a list of objectives like: use social media to help the residents of New Haven better understand what is happening in the public schools or the aldermanic chambers, a single objective emerged. While a specific phrase was not used, the idea is something like establishing a framework or platform to enable connections between New Haven stakeholders to improve the quality of life in New Haven.
This, of course, begs the question, who are the stakeholders in New Haven? The answer was immediately clear. Everyone. With such broad goals, how do you proceed? How do you measure outcomes? Based on some of the ideas from the GoogleHaven effort, it was quickly agreed that we need to connect 100 people with ideas about how to improve the quality of life in New Haven to people that can help make those ideas happen.
Some people immediately thought about a platform in terms of the technology. Perhaps some thought of something like SeeClickFix on steroids. Yet a platform or framework for accomplishing this task may be more about the people and their connections than the underlying technology. It may be that technological tools already exist and what is really needed is getting more people thinking about and aware of how they can use such existing tools to help make connections that will strengthen New Haven.
In many ways, this leads back to Open Space Technology, the underlying ideas behind unconferences such as barcamps and the upcoming Podcamp in Connecticut. With thousands of stakeholders, any of which may have great ideas that need to be heard, it would be presumptuous for the couple dozen people in a conference room in City Hall to come up with the list of issues to be addressed. Instead, a process to facilitate anyone in New Haven finding others to work with them on ideas to improve New Haven should be established. Done right, this will help people get better services from their government and bring better ideas to their government. It will use social media to reduce bureaucracy. It will help make local government much more of a government, of, by and for the people.
One set of ideas is likely to be ways of further refining the process of using social media to facilitate people connecting to share ideas with others in New Haven. So, while there are initial goals of connecting one hundred people with one hundred ideas in one hundred days, the process will be iterative. It will change and even better methods will emerge. From a technology perspective, it will be similar to Rapid Application Development. It seems like Open Space Technology and Rapid Application Development logically go hand in hand.
Perhaps a good way of looking at this is in terms of an ‘untaskforce’. An untaskforce is to task forces what an unconference is to conferences. Will New Haven succeed in setting examples of new forms of local government interaction based on untaskforces? Folks at City Hall appear receptive and the people behind GoogleHaven and #swct appear eager to build upon their earlier successes.
Join New Haven in exploring an untaskforce. Share your ideas about how we can help people use new tools to better connect and share ideas about improving New Haven. What do you think the framework or platform should be like? There will be a meeting next Tuesday at City Hall at 9:30 in the morning. I will be there. Between now and then, I’ll mostly be on vacation, so I may not be responding to messages as quickly as normal, but let me know your ideas, or simply show up next Tuesday.
